LETTERS: Responding to reactions to Palestra shooting

To the Editor: I know many of you have been asking the same difficult questions that I have about how this could have happened and what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it. However complicated, these questions deserve to be answered, and we are working to do just that. We will do everything we can to ensure that this terrible incident is never repeated. I feel for La Bombard and for any of our students or others who witnessed Sunday afternoon's occurrences. I hope that anyone who is troubled by what happened will seek assistance from one of our counseling professionals on campus and let me know what else might be helpful at this point. Contemporary society and an urban environment may pose certain challenges that are unavoidable. But this does not mean we throw up our hands and give up. So what must we do? As I said, we will answer as many questions arising from this incident as we can, and as effectively as we can. In the meantime, we must be thankful that John is doing very well, and we must face each day with new resolve and new optimism. We have no responsibility greater than the safety and security of our campus community. I personally take that responsibility extremely seriously, and I care deeply about your well-being. Judith Rodin University President u To the Editor: The bulk of the letters which your newspaper published Tuesday criticized the administration for hosting this year's high school championship basketball game in light of the events at last year's event. Given that one man was killed and three others were injured on University property, such criticisms are banal and obvious. Given that the events are passed, such criticisms are also of limited value. What should concern students more is the administration's assertion that allowing such events to take place on University property is "consistent with [the University's] educational mission" and that, therefore, there will not be an immediate and decisive move to make the community use policy more restrictive. One would want assume that the administration understands that few things are less compatible with any educational mission than students and staff being shot at and stabbed on campus. Further, one would hope that the administration realizes that qualified students and faculty are choosing to attend other institutions in part because of Penn's dangerous reputation. The admissions literature boasts that the University is a school with a global perspective. I am inclined to agree: last year there was an article in The Herald Tribune about the shooting outside of Smoke's. When trying to persuade friends and acquaintances to attend Penn, the question of safety is invariably raised. In reply, I can only admit my embarrassment. Students at this University pay breathtaking amounts of money for the privilege of living and working here. They, along with the faculty, are the primary constituents of the administration. To sacrifice their most basic interest in personal security on the altar of a nebulous and ill-conceived notion of "wanting to be helpful to the community" is a violation of their trust and does serious harm to this institution. Alexander Evis Wharton '98, MBA '99 u To the Editor: This letter serves as a response to both the editorial "Students must come first" (The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/3/98) and Mike Madden's column "Avoid a knee-jerk reaction" (DP, 3/4/98). As a native black Philadelphian, I am just as wary and afraid of crime as you are. The old defense "violence is everywhere" is factual, but it doesn't tell students that are afraid to leave the protective bubble of Penn what to do or how to protect themselves from crime. The Editorial Board thinks that the Palestra shouldn't host Public League championships anymore. Drexel, which was supposed to host a high school basketball game this week, changed its mind and refused to let the league play on its court. As a person who's played in Philadelphia Public League basketball tournaments (Masterman High, '94 and '96), I do not deny the potential for violence. Basketball is a sport that's taken very seriously, especially during a game that's meant to determine the best in the city. Everyone invites their family and their friends, who in turn invite their friends? there's bound to be clash of some kind. But here's a hint to Penn, Drexel and any other institution that's afraid of high school students that play basketball (some of which grace their halls the very next year via academic or athletic scholarships): Don't let a small group of teenagers get the best of you. As easy as it may seem to put of a shield and cite "safety," it just makes a university look weak -- especially since this incident was the result of a feud between young people, possibly gang members, from different neighborhoods and had no connection with the tounament. Dropping the tournament in no way shows the "creative, clear-headed thought" Madden justly calls for in his column. The Editorial Board wrote, "Since the spectators for this event are predominantly black, many people are likely to perceive it as racist and a bad PR move for Penn. But safety, not race, is at issue here." But race is an issue, unfortunately. While discussion about the Sunday shooting still goes on, nobody seems worried about the Catholic League playoffs being held at the Palestra (last night and Sunday) and, tentatively, a game or games in the PIAA state playoffs, all of which feature predominately white players and spectators. Penn, Drexel and other institutions: Do you want to be accused of keeping students with tons of academic and athletic potential out of a positive higher educational environment? Almost all of the violent incidents surrounding Public League games in recent history were started by people, usually in their early 20s, who weren't students. Yet it's current students that look forward to the opportunity to play in front of their parents (sometimes, as in my case, for the first time) and college recruiters, who may hold the key to an education they might not otherwise be able to afford. Taking away the venue for these students is an irresponsible answer for a problem that will never go away -- violence. Now that it's "in your backyard," why not try to use those degrees of yours to help the city fight crime everywhere and at anytime, instead of just bulking up security in your immediate vicinity and ignoring the city around you? Melanie Redmond College '00 u To the Editor: In response to Doug Haber's Letter to the Editor (DP, 3/3/98) I have the following comment: Talk about immature. Haber's letter was about the worst response I could think of to the violence on our campus. I don't know about him, but I'd rather base my security on reality and not some professor's theoretical view on why a 17-year-old drives down 33rd Street in a Lexus and starts shooting people. How can Haber possibly think that we should make our campus a testing ground for theories on how to stop urban crime? I don't think that was included in the description of what my $30,000-plus a year is going for. As a Wharton graduate student and former Penn undergrad, I can understand how you may think that theory is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But while that may work while trying to pass a Psychology exam, in the real world (Penn campus) we have to deal with the environment we live in. Haber said that because the University "has both the means and the opportunity to answer social dilemmas like the one posed Sunday, it has a moral responsibility to propose solutions and follow through with their implementation." Following this line of theory would lead me to believe that General Motors, being one of the largest and most influential corporations in the U.S., has a moral responsibility to solve some of the largest social problems of our country. Better yet, Haber said, "Since we live in a crime-ridden area that even the Philadelphia Police, the Penn Police and an army of private security guards cannot handle, we should take it upon ourselves to implement new social policy which will hopefully stop urban crime (that is, if we don't get killed trying to do it)." Doesn't it sound a bit simpler to just hold Penn-only events on our campus? I'd be interested to know what kind of upbringing would lead a kid to shoot someone over a high school basketball game. I do not, however, want to see Penn tackle these problems by using our campus as some type of urban experiment. Penn should ban all events (high school basketball, Penn relays, etc.) that pose any security risk to the students, professors and staff of our university -- without exception. Chuck Myers Wharton '98, MBA '99